Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Taking Sides

By Dan Schnur February 5, 2008 4:51 pmFebruary 5, 2008 4:51 pm

Much has been written about the economic, social and national security conservatives who represent the three legs of the Republican party coalition. But consider instead another way of analyzing the current G.O.P. landscape, dividing the party into three different factions. Call them the “we’ve-never-liked-McCain Republicans,” the “we-don’t-trust-Romney” Republicans and most important, the “we’re-not-going-to-win-anyway” Republicans.

The differences between these camps are as much about attitude as issues. Together, they help explain why a long-time outsider like John McCain is poised to win over the G.O.P. establishment at the expense of a candidate like Mitt Romney, whose policy platform and professional biography would seem to make him a natural choice for the more traditional members of the party.

The largest subgroup of the G.O.P. electorate is the “we’ve-never-liked-McCain” Republicans. This group doesn’t like what they perceive to be as Senator McCain’s heresies on tax cuts, immigration and global warming. If Senator McCain becomes the party’s nominee, he’ll have the opportunity to shrink its ranks considerably with the combination of a smart selection of a running mate, an almost-relentless focus on national security and the unusual assistance of a battalion of Swift Boat descendants poised to eviscerate the Democratic nominee.

Because an important percentage of these voters are supporting Mike Huckabee’s candidacy rather than Mitt Romney’s, the anti-McCain faction has seen its influence compromised. The longer these remaining Huckabites wait to consolidate behind one candidate, the less influence this faction will have over the nomination. But if Senator McCain doesn’t wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, a prolonged battle with Mitt Romney could cause these ranks to grow.

Whether it’s because of his past positions on abortion and gay rights, a tendency to emphasize different aspects of his biography to different audiences, or possibly just his hair, a number of G.O.P. regulars simply don’t find Mr. Romney credible even on issues on which they agree with him. While the “we-don’t-trust-Romney” Republicans are smaller in number than those who don’t like Senator McCain, they are currently in control of the nomination process.

The core of this group have given their hearts to Senator McCain either over national security issues or the long-forgotten campaign reform platform on which he ran eight years ago. But many of these Republicans have swum from the wreckage of the Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani candidacies to unite behind Senator McCain and are not entirely comfortable with his candidacy. If Mr. Romney is to come back, he has to shrink this group quickly by figuring out a way to gain their trust — or by frightening them about Senator McCain.

Interestingly, the Republicans who are most skeptical about winning in November now have the power to decide the nomination. Most of them support the Iraq war but know that it’s unpopular with many voters. Almost all of them believe that President Bush didn’t get the credit he deserved for six years of economic growth, but worry that the arriving recession will be laid at his feet. They know intuitively that American voters like to hand the White House back and forth between the two parties at regular intervals, and they see the growing enthusiasm on the other side of the aisle in the form of Democratic fundraising, crowd size and voter turnout.

This fatalistic approach lessens the stakes in a nominating contest. These G.O.P. regulars who don’t trust Mr. Romney see the nomination as a gold watch for Senator McCain, a token of appreciation for his years of service. Once he loses, they hope the party will go back to nominating more traditional conservatives. The Republicans who’ve never liked Senator McCain can vote for Mr. Romney, and console themselves with the idea that if we’re going to lose, we might as well do it conventionally and comfortably. (Think of this approach as the Bob Dole Sweepstakes, in honor of the sacrificial candidate sent into hopeless battle against a popular Democratic president in 1996.)

There are a lot of Republican voters who are genuinely enthused about one of our candidates. There are a lot of Republicans who are still convinced we can win this election, and cite Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s weaknesses as mantras to sustain this belief. But I suspect that these voters are not a majority in our party.

And yet there is always the chance that the unexpected happens: Republicans could win in November. Senator Obama’s support for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants could cost him California. Clinton Fatigue could prove to be a stronger force than Clinton Nostalgia. With that hope in mind, the gold-watch Republicans seem to be giving Senator McCain an advantage over the lose-with-comfort conservatives. Mr. Romney’s challenge is to convince Republican voters that ideological tradition is worth the fighting for and that they should rally to him for one last stand. That may be difficult to pull off in the next few hours. The question is what he does once the delegates are tallied the day after.

But the eventual nominee is going to have to find a way to inject a serious amount of optimism into the Republican bloodstream. Because gold watches and silver medals don’t mean much in politics.

You left out a group: The-We-Didn’t-Listen-Rushed-To-War-Were-Bush’s-Lap-Dogs-And-Diminished-Our-International-Reputation-While-Flipping-A-Surplus-Into-Our-Country’s-Greatest-Deficit Wing of the Republican. Those are the scariest ones of all…….

You left out Dr. Ron Paul, the only candidate who makes any sense to get us out of this state of total denial. Every candidate ignores the real problem: Our economy. Our worthless dollar. Our jobs. Our policing the world which we can not afford. Our taking in illegal aliens we can not afford to support. Our huge deficit. We’re living in a fantasy world which will collapse, and we are only starting to see the beginning of the collapse. Let’s see what happens and watch passively like we always do while we vote for all these “politicians” who are just figureheads for big corporate power. And at the same time, say goodbye to the USA you grew up in. It’s happening right before our eyes. In our old age, we will look back and be very sad we let it happen.

Excuse me, “taking in illegal aliens we cannot afford to support”? We can’t afford *not* to have them here. Without them, there would be no one to clean our office buildings, pick our produce, process meat, or build our homes. We need to find a way to give hard-working people a legal way to work here, not demonize them for wanting to feed their families or for filling a needed role in our economy.

Glaring omission to leave out Ron Paul’s supporter here, since their entire strategy at this point is to collect delegates from states where others are not competing. And, indeed, Paul is the only Republican candidate who is actually drawing positive, passionate supporters to his cause.

What a useless analysis. The reason Bush Jr. won two times is because his goal is to make his “base” richer. And By God he did. Even after the emerging fiasco of his first term, his tax-cuts alone ensured that powerful forces would make sure he got re-elected. Do you actually think that Big Money will let a Democrat win this election and surely loose the obscene windfalls they’ve been enjoying? Ha! Not a chance. Whichever Republican convinces Big Money they can continue to gut this country to their benefit, that candidate will win and be our next President. Clearly, McCain seems to be their guy. Follow the Money. It’s just that depressingly simple.

Gee-the NY Times publishes an op-ed from an out and out republican. This while it prints William Kristol’s fantasies and David Brooks’s delusions. I don’t quite get this. I thought the paper of record was liberal or at least a responsible repository of journalistic integrity. Face facts Bill, you can be credible or you can publish conservative spin. You can’t do both.

Julia S said: “Excuse me, “taking in illegal aliens we cannot afford to support”? We can’t afford *not* to have them here. Without them, there would be no one to clean our office buildings, pick our produce, process meat, or build our homes.”

Gimme a break. We’ve survived without hordes of illegal aliens before, and we’ll survive if they go home. Market forces have a way of ensuring that everything in an economy gets done. Do you really believe we will all work in messy office buildings, stop eating produce and meat, and live homeless without illegals??

If you’re “pro” breaking our immigration laws, just be forthright. No need for ad absurdum arguments.

This analysis is nonsense. Mitt Romney is not upholding a conservative “ideological tradition” by choosing, based on some strategist’s poor advise, to center his campaign on bashing immigrants. Ronald Reagan, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Rudy Giuliani (in his better days), and countless other conservatives have been strong advocates for immigrants and immigration. The true ideological tradition of Republicans is believing in “free people and free markets”, not to mention a genuine belief in the American Dream – all of this points to a pro-immigration position. Just because in this election cycle some talk show hosts tried out immigration-bashing doesn’t make it a tradition, and certainly not a Republican tradition. Get real.

Doubt that Brian has spent any time on a farm, or on a ranch, or in an office building at night, or paid attention to the maids in the hallway of the motel, or looked into the kitchen at his favorite restaurant or at the men and women huddled on a street corner just looking for a day’s work to sustain them and their families. If those folks took one week off, let alone be forced to journey home, the economy would suffer in direct proportion to the length of time they didn’t do these jobs.

“Gimme a break. We’ve survived without hordes of illegal aliens before, and we’ll survive if they go home. Market forces have a way of ensuring that everything in an economy gets done. Do you really believe we will all work in messy office buildings, stop eating produce and meat, and live homeless without illegals??”

Umm… America has seen constant waves of immigration ever since the original immigration of English, French, and Dutch colonists. It’s cliched but it’s true: we’re an immigrant nation.

“Market Forces” *are* solving the problem – by ensuring that there will continue to be immigrant labor regardless of the laws.

I consider myself a libertarian but the anti-immigration, pro-gold standard wing of the movement is idiotic.

Six years of economic growth? It was always a house of cards built on false premises. Republican anti-regulationism led directly to the subprime mess now coming home to roost. As for the much tauted “personal” accounts, to replace defined pension benefits and social security; mine has shrunk in value so precipitously that I am forced to delay my retirement for probably another three years! Unlike W, I don’t have a rich daddy or Saudi family friends to bail me out of yet another collosal failure. The political pendulum does swing, but as for me and my house, we will never forget the damage that W and the fawning Republican congress has done to our country and the world.

Mr Schnur reveals precisely why the Republican Presidential candidate has no chance to win the election. He falls back on the “hope” that hatred of Hillary Clinton will unite Republicans or that Obama will lose California because he doesn’t hate immigrants enough. (The illegal vs legal status of immigrants is not really the issue if you talk to many people who express this resentment.) Republican power over the last 30 years has resulted not from any grand conservative philosophy, but mainly to Southern racists who defected from the Democratic Party in the ’60s. What Republicans don’t seem to understand is that this hatefulness, nastiness and divisiveness is what propels so many away from their candidates and toward Obama. Their exploitation of hatred for political gain is about to backfire.

The same can be said about McCain on immigration. Republicans hate him because he also does not show sufficient hate for immigrants. But McCain has no chance because he advocates deep cuts in domestic spending (i.e., health care) in order to afford to spend the next 100 years in Iraq. Could his priorities be more out of step with the public mood? So McCain will fail because he is out of step not only with the public, but also with the hate-mongers in his own party.

America’s Dems are faced with a big decision. Do they go with a candidate who will eke out a victory in November by carrying Florida and Ohio, and in all likelihood be a one-term President? Or do they go with a candidate who will redraw the political map of our country for a whole generation or more, infuse the Dem party with the enthusiam of youth, and be one of the most highly regarded presidents in the history of our country? The answer to that question is clear to Republicans; when are the Dems going to get it?

Schnur writes, “Almost all of them believe that President Bush didn’t get the credit he deserved for six years of economic growth, but worry that the arriving recession will be laid at his feet.”

Any such belief system is based on multiple failures of understanding. Let’s start with blame: here in the eighth and final year of the Bush 43 presidency, who is there to blame for the coming recession *except* the president? Bill Clinton (again)? The Tooth Fairy? Certainly, this administration has never hesitated to take credit for successes (real or imagined) occurring on its watch, whether in the economy or in the Global War on Terror. Trying to deflect blame for the current bad economic news isn’t just silly; it’s cowardly.

Also, the quote above assumes that there is actual credit deserved for economic growth. Compared to what? Bush 43’s GDP growth stats (//tinyurl.com/2d2gpp) are anemic compared to those for just about every recent administration.

What's Next

About

Weekly pieces by the Op-Ed columnists Charles Blow and Ross Douthat, as well as regular posts from contributing writers like Thomas B. Edsall and Timothy Egan. This is also the place for opinionated political thinkers from all over the United States to make their arguments about everything connected to the 2012 election. Yes, everything: the candidates, the states, the caucuses, the issues, the rules, the controversies, the primaries, the ads, the electorate, the present, the past and even the future.